Sexualität        [ zurück ]      [ Index ]      [ Literatur-Index ]      [ Die Hyper-Bibliothek ]     

Vordergründig wird Sexualität oft mit Fortpflanzung und biologischer Geschlechtlichkeit in Verbindung gebracht. Meine Frage ist aber, was ich mit Sexualität überdies (beyond) meine, denn für Fortpflanzung und biologischer Geschlechtlichkeit habe ich ja bereits eigene Wörter. (Dieselbe Problematisierung steckt auch im Ausdruck "Gender").
Siehe dazu R. Todesco: Entsexualisierung

Differenztheoretisch kann Sexualität durch die Differenz zwischen Sexualität und einer spezifischen Gefährdung der Familie gesehen werden, wobei auf der Unterscheidungsseite der Familie die Sexualität wiedereintritt, wo die erbenden Nachkommen an Sexualität gebunden sind.

Erläuterung:
Seit dem Code Napoleon (1804) gilt: Ist ein Kind während der Ehe geboren, so gilt der Ehemann als Vater. Diese Formulierung, die auch in den meisten neuen Gesetzeswerken steht, besagt, dass die Nachkommenschaft kein biologisches, sondern ein rechtliches Verhältnis ist, dass allerdings mit biologischen Gründen angefochten werden kann.
Es geht rechtlich darum, dass die Kinder in geordneten Verhältnissen erben, und dass erst in zweiter Instanz die jeweilige Ordnung problematisiert werden kann. Zunächst ist klar, wer der Vater ist.
Nun kann man sich fragen, was gegen diese Ordnung verstösst, aber nicht im Sinne einer Gesetzesverletzung, sondern in einem inhaltlichen Sinn. Alles was dazu beiträgt, dass nicht der Ehemann der Vater des Kindes ist, verstösst gegen diese Ordnung. Wir bezeichnen alle derartigen Handlungen als sexuell - aber wir bezeichnen die Handlungen auch dann als sexuell, wenn sie innerhalb der Ordnung vorkommen.

Wenn ein Mann eine Frau küsst, kann das als (Teil)-Handlung verstanden werden, die zu einem Kind führen kann. Wenn die beiden nicht verheiratet sind, weil die Frau bereits anderweitig verheiratet ist, wird ein "anderer" Mann Vater des Kindes. Deshalb ist Küssen sexuell. Auch wenn der Ehemann seine Frau küsst. Das Sexuelle bezieht sich eben auf das Rechtsverhältnis, das ein anderes Verhältnis überlagert.


 

H. Schelsky, Kinsey


 
[]

noch prüfen (und bei L die Verwechslung von Liebe und Sexualität untersuchen) Hello Loet and A Happy New Year, You have certainly hit upon a key passage in Luhmann’s recent published essay ‘Love. A Sketch’, but I am not totally convinced that your interpretation is justified by what Luhmann actually wrote. For Luhmann, in this essay at least, THE SYSTEM “that is capable of lasting” is not love, but the family. (page 50) Love is the medium of communication and not a system. More particularly, the system is the family based on monogamous marriage which, for its part, is expected to be based on love. Luhmann points out the contradictions in demanding romantic love for marriage (and so the family) on passionate love, when such love is capable of disrupting, if not destroying, the family. The problem of providing excuses for ‘unreasonably demanded marriage’ (e.g. based on inappropriate love matches) or adultery intensify (by comparison with marriages/families not based on love). Any divergence from love and marriage endangers the foundation of the system (i.e. the family). 'Love enhances both opportunities and risks at the same time.' Thus, the idea of tying family and marriage to this ‘fluctuating feeling’ is unreliable and gives rise to the development of stabilizing mechanisms inherent in ‘a marriage sealed by love’ (page 52). These stabilizing mechanisms include the kind of companionship and ‘togetherness’ where expectations become shared between the individuals concerned and socially expectations of such shared expectations between individuals evolve as part of the system of the family based on marriage. (page 54). So, (1)Luhmann does not see ‘love as a functional system’, as you suggest. The system is not ‘love’ or ‘romantic love’ but the family or the family based on marriage. (2)In a way, this seems to me more (not less, as you state) structurally rigid than the notion of systems in Luhmann’s post autopoietic work. Finally, Luhmann, does not, as you state, see ‘love’ as regulating sexuality, although clearly some functionalist sociologists do give it this role. For Luhmann, on the contrary, it is sexuality that ‘ACQUIRES A BASIC FUNCTION IN THE CASE OF LOVE, comparable to the function fulfilled by physical coercion in the case of political power, by intersubjective coercive certainty of perception in the case of scientific truth …’ (page 37). Luhmann sees the function of sexuality and physical coercion as making clear the consistent need for anchors of certainty, “real assets”. This biological underpinning or ‘the act of reaching down to the organic sphere’ as he describes it, 'can help to convice the organism' and ‘appears to be essential’ as part of the institutionalization of communication media. (pae 38) There is no suggestion of regulation. I am not sure where this leaves your notion of ‘symbiotic mechanisms’ and ‘control mechanisms’, which seem to come from a different theory or a different version of Luhmann’s theory – and I look forward to your response - but I do not think that this is quite what Luhmann intended – at least not in this essay. I should also be interested to hear from you or others how Luhmann’s ideas on romantic love have stood the test of time – particularly in the light of the widespread social acceptance of long-term heterosexual partnerships and homosexual relationships and their institututionalization within civil partnerships and single sex marriages, all of which are based on 'love'. Best wishes. Michael

Dear Loet, Contrary to what you imply, the book ‘Love as Passion’ also does NOT present love as a system, but as a generalized medium of communication. Indeed, the title of one of the chapters is ‘Love as a Generalized Medium of Symbolic Communication’. In a later chapter Luhmann writes: “Love regulates intimate communication, [not sexuality] and thus intimate communication does not constitute a system beyond the level of interaction.” At this point such types of differentiation of paradoxical microsystems and regulated interaction as are based on an illusionary concept tion of modern society as a specifically rational society (Max Weber) cease to function.” (p.56) I think we can deduce from this that for Luhmann it is ‘intimate communication’ that DOES constitute a system at the level of interaction, but not at the societal level. Further on in the book he asks: “Can intimate relationships be left open to autonomous self-regulation? Can they exist in themselves, without social supports, linked to the environment by processes that do not correspond to the nature or to the particular mode of information processing in intimate relationships?” (p.158) In other words, is it possible to see intimate relationships as social system? In the Preface to the English Edition of the book Luhmann gives a kind of answer to this question, when he writes:- “ The distinction between the theory of social systems and theory of symbolic generalized media of communication, two areas that should belong together, runs counter to the distinction between a systemic and an historical perspective. … I see the question of the connection between systems theory and media theory not as a fixed link, but as one open to change. It is not predetermined by the conceptual structure of systems theory, but rather remains in essence open to evolution … media codes can be conceived of as catalysts which necessarily bring about a differentiation of complex social systems, once their use has become sufficiently dependable and constant enough to be foreseeable.” (p.6) Maybe this also answers in part the questions that each of us has raised about control mechanisms and the variety of socially accepted intimate relationships that exist to day – all of which are expected to be based on love. Best wishes, Michael PS. Jerod, as a musician and a Luhmann fan, you really should write a song with the message that Love is not all that One Needs! The sales should provide some empirical evidence as to whether Luhmann theory is right or wrong!
 
[Historie]